That scheduling has created a Catch-22 for cannabis research, writes Christopher Ingraham in The Washington Post.

"Research into medical applications of marijuana is constrained by the Schedule 1 designation. And the plant is designated Schedule 1 because there isn't enough research into medical applications."

That scheduling isn't just a legal definition: it's a stigma. Hudak and Wallack note that many universities avoid cannabis research because donors and parents of students might morally object to such studies. The controversial nature of cannabis has also pitted researchers against universities.

Good Science Impeded By DEA Policy

As a result, American physicians are recommending medicinal cannabis based on "anecdotal evidence or limited science." To fix that situation, Hudak and Wallack propose rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule II drug. This would:

reduce the arduous process of acquiring licenses to obtain cannabis for testing.

"Yeah, I don't think so," Rosenberg answered. "Marijuana is dangerous [...] I wouldn't recommend that anyone do it. So I don't frankly see a reason to remove it. We, by the way, support, and have supported, a lot of legitimate research on marijuana, fully behind that; I think it's great. If we come up with a medical use for it, that would be wonderful. But we haven't."

Nor will they, according to Hudak and Wallack, while cannabis remains a Schedule I drug.

Latest.

With reports of declining insect populations worldwide, or what George Monbiot calls an “insectageddon,” there is growing concern about the health of pollinators. This in turn has led to increasing interest in urban beekeeping, pollinator gardening and urban bee advocacy. Yet there is also a growing backlash against urban honey bees.